PFD report

Jennifer BUNYAN and Marion BUNYAN · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 26 Jul 2024•Cambridgeshire and Peterborough

Report record

Published report and response evidence

This page connects the concerns raised in this report with statements found in recipients’ published responses. A link shows a clear evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
7

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
11

Described in responses

Source document

Full report text

This is the full text from the original published report.

Open published report

Concerns and recipient responses

Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised7

  1. Unavailability of a final vehicle-exclusion solution at the waterway
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate roadside vehicle-restraint barriers
  2. Delays in risk-reduction action at cluster sites
  3. Unsafe speed limit for the road design and condition
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate control of vehicle loss-of-control risks on hazardous road sectionsPart of recurring concern: Inadequate speed control at hazardous road locations
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

Actions described in response An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.8

  1. Action

    Conduct verge reinstatement trials to identify effective treatments for rutting, soil erosion and verge collapse.

    Stated by Cambridgeshire County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 1 August 2024.
  2. Action

    Take and analyse soil core samples to inform long-term remedial solutions for soil-affected sections of Puddock Road.

    Stated by Cambridgeshire County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 1 August 2024.
  3. Action

    Conduct a traffic flow survey to inform proposed closure or restricted access for Puddock Road.

    Stated by Cambridgeshire County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 1 August 2024.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.4

  1. Position

    A rafting barrier was not pursued because its installation and maintenance costs and complexity were prohibitively high, without guaranteed long-term structural rigidity.

    Stated by Cambridgeshire County CouncilUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Unavailability of a final vehicle-exclusion solution at the waterway

Wider context from the report

“A Barrier to prevent entry to the waterway would be one effective measure that has been deployed in many other places to prevent a vehicle leaving the road and yet, I understand no final solution is in place. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate roadside vehicle-restraint barriers.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Delays in risk-reduction action at cluster sites

Wider context from the report

“Councils have a number of roads that feature on a cluster site analysis. By their nature, these will carry an obvious and serious risk of death or significant injury. Funding pressures in recent years have delayed prompt action in risk reduction at these sites. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Unsafe speed limit for the road design and condition

Wider context from the report

“The designated speed for this section of road was 60 mph. The charity BRAKE have stated that the default speed limit on rural roads is 60 mph, a speed at which it is rarely safe to travel. They stated the approach should be based on the design of roads. This road has an uneven road surface and it was within local knowledge that the designated speed limit was dangerous and could lead to a loss of control whilst driving in the upper speed range. The need for a reduction in the limit as a safety measure does not appear to have been raised during inspections/debriefs following a series of fatalities that have led to a number of drowning incidents along this section of road. It raises a concern that the speed limit should be reduced significantly as a risk reduction measure – some areas have adopted 20 mph on some sections of road. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate control of vehicle loss-of-control risks on hazardous road sections; Inadequate speed control at hazardous road locations.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Delays in repairing highway degradation

Wider context from the report

“This has been an issue and I have a concern about prompt repairs being effected to the road and also the weight of vehicles which is a factor in damage to the verge adjacent to the road itself. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to maintain roads, pavements and verges in a safe state of repair.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to take prompt action following road safety representations

Wider context from the report

“The Fenland Road Safety Campaign (Charlotte's Way) have undertaken outstanding work as a charity in raising awareness of the dangers of Fenland roads given the unique environmental factors involved. It is not clear whether there has been prompt action taken following representations from them on safety matters. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Insufficiently rigorous road inspections

Wider context from the report

“I have a concern that inspections of the road have not been sufficiently rigorous given a recurring issue of highway degradation from ‘rutting’ at the carriageway edge which can be a contributory factor causing loss of control of a vehicle. It is unclear if the council have carried out audits to review the quality of inspections and whether there have been examples of substandard inspections. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable highway inspection and asset-recording processes.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to audit the quality of road inspections

Wider context from the report

“I have a concern that inspections of the road have not been sufficiently rigorous given a recurring issue of highway degradation from ‘rutting’ at the carriageway edge which can be a contributory factor causing loss of control of a vehicle. It is unclear if the council have carried out audits to review the quality of inspections and whether there have been examples of substandard inspections. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable highway inspection and asset-recording processes.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Conduct verge reinstatement trials to identify effective treatments for rutting, soil erosion and verge collapse.

Verbatim wording from the response

“agricultural machinery that overruns the paved road. Verge reinstatement trials will begin in early 2025 where different sections of rutting will receive treatment to see which performs best under varying conditions, and when it is anticipated the verges will be at their softest and most susceptible to collapse or wash out. As part of a wide-ranging change programme within our Place and Sustainability directorate, the County Council is revising and tightening its assurance arrangements.”

Source location

Response from Cambridgeshire County Council
Page 3 · response
Published 1 August 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Take and analyse soil core samples to inform long-term remedial solutions for soil-affected sections of Puddock Road.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Puddock Road is subject to a formal inspection every three months and regular visits from a Local Highway Officer. Where identified, necessary repairs are undertaken and where possible, rutting is back filled. This is an interim solution to a complex issue around soil erosion and climate factors. In July 2024 soil core samples were taken from random sections of Puddock Road to assist engineers in understanding what lies beneath the road and identify possible long term remedial solutions. The core samples have revealed a peat layer between 300 and 500mm deep, on top of which is a layer of silty clay.”

Source location

Response from Cambridgeshire County Council
Page 2 · response
Published 1 August 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Conduct a traffic flow survey to inform proposed closure or restricted access for Puddock Road.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• A traffic flow survey will be conducted in early November 2024.”

Source location

Response from Cambridgeshire County Council
Page 4 · response
Published 1 August 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Consult engineers on measures to address rutting caused by heavy agricultural machinery overrunning the paved road.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As with other Fenland roads, Puddock Road is identified as one of the roads that has been impacted by the behaviour of the soils on which the road has been built. Engineers are now consulting on how best to deal with the rutting caused by the use of heavy”

Source location

Response from Cambridgeshire County Council
Page 2 · response
Published 1 August 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Undertake informal engagement and submit a Traffic Regulation Order application for closure or restricted access to Puddock Road, subject to statutory consultation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Informal engagement will be undertaken on the closure or restricted access for Puddock Road after the completion of the traffic flow survey. A formal application for a Traffic Regulation Order will be made and subject to a statutory consultation.”

Source location

Response from Cambridgeshire County Council
Page 4 · response
Published 1 August 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Implement a 30mph speed limit on the single-track section of Puddock Road with 40mph buffer zones.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The speed limit on the single-track section of Puddock Road will be reduced to 30mph, with 40mph buffer entry sections, from November 2024. A formal traffic regulation order (TRO) has been approved for implementation of the new speed limit. The order will be formally made following installation of the signage.”

Source location

Response from Cambridgeshire County Council
Page 2 · response
Published 1 August 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Maintain enhanced maintenance checks on Puddock Road to identify and address highway degradation, including rutting.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The composition of Puddock Road presents the County Council with many challenges, not least of which is the sub soil that the road is built on. Repairs that have been completed do not last, and with the continued movement of the sub soil it is proving difficult to find a long-lasting solution. This is why the Council instigated the enhanced maintenance checks on Puddock Road. A weight restriction on the road was considered but is not being progressed at this time due to the access requirements for farm vehicles. The trial sections to treat rutting in the verge will be commencing in early 2025 will hopefully give us some longer-term solutions to the soil erosion issues.”

Source location

Response from Cambridgeshire County Council
Page 3 · response
Published 1 August 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Prioritise funding for Puddock Road remedial action through the Road Safety Programme.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following the fatalities, Puddock Road was identified as a priority for remedial action and funding prioritised as part of the Road Safety Programme agreed by the Highways and Transport Committee on 12 July 2022.”

Source location

Response from Cambridgeshire County Council
Page 3 · response
Published 1 August 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

A rafting barrier was not pursued because its installation and maintenance costs and complexity were prohibitively high, without guaranteed long-term structural rigidity.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Due to the nature of this road, the initial consideration was to review the use of a Vehicle Restraint System (VRS, or Barriers). Having carefully considered this option with expert technical advice, the project board made a recommendation to the Council’s Highways and Transport Committee that alternative measures be implemented. The VRS was not considered suitable due to the ground conditions, which may not be capable of withstanding an impact and the barrier may simply collapse. A rafting barrier solution that has been used by National Highways was also the considered, however the cost and complexity of such a system was prohibitively expensive, not only to install but also to maintain, and again with no guarantees of structural rigidity being retained over time.”

Source location

Response from Cambridgeshire County Council
Page 3 · response
Published 1 August 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

A vehicle restraint system was not suitable because unstable ground conditions might cause the barrier to collapse after impact.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Due to the nature of this road, the initial consideration was to review the use of a Vehicle Restraint System (VRS, or Barriers). Having carefully considered this option with expert technical advice, the project board made a recommendation to the Council’s Highways and Transport Committee that alternative measures be implemented. The VRS was not considered suitable due to the ground conditions, which may not be capable of withstanding an impact and the barrier may simply collapse. A rafting barrier solution that has been used by National Highways was also the considered, however the cost and complexity of such a system was prohibitively expensive, not only to install but also to maintain, and again with no guarantees of structural rigidity being retained over time.”

Source location

Response from Cambridgeshire County Council
Page 3 · response
Published 1 August 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

A weight restriction was not progressed because farm vehicles require access to the road.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The composition of Puddock Road presents the County Council with many challenges, not least of which is the sub soil that the road is built on. Repairs that have been completed do not last, and with the continued movement of the sub soil it is proving difficult to find a long-lasting solution. This is why the Council instigated the enhanced maintenance checks on Puddock Road. A weight restriction on the road was considered but is not being progressed at this time due to the access requirements for farm vehicles. The trial sections to treat rutting in the verge will be commencing in early 2025 will hopefully give us some longer-term solutions to the soil erosion issues.”

Source location

Response from Cambridgeshire County Council
Page 3 · response
Published 1 August 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Cluster-site analysis enforcement and any central fund are matters for the relevant local highway authority, so no Department action is intended.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Department allocates highways maintenance capital funding to local highways authorities so they can most effectively invest in maintaining and improving their respective network, based upon their local knowledge, circumstances, and priorities.”

Source location

Response from Department of Transport
Page 2 · response
Published 1 August 2024

Open published response

Other statements in published responses

These actions and other statements could not be clearly connected to one concern in this report.

Recipient-stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.3

  1. 1

    Revise and tighten assurance arrangements within the Place and Sustainability directorate.

    Stated by Cambridgeshire County CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 1 August 2024.
  2. 2

    Meet monthly through the Puddock Road Project Board to keep planned works on target and address emerging issues.

    Stated by Cambridgeshire County CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 1 August 2024.
  3. 3

    Develop a new Road Safety Strategy.

    Stated by Department for TransportStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 1 August 2024.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.2

  1. 1

    Satellite-navigation operators are responsible for ensuring their platform information is accurate and up to date.

    Stated by Department for TransportRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
  2. 2

    The Department and local authorities have no direct power over satellite-navigation routing guidance.

    Stated by Department for TransportUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Revise and tighten assurance arrangements within the Place and Sustainability directorate.

Verbatim wording from the response

“agricultural machinery that overruns the paved road. Verge reinstatement trials will begin in early 2025 where different sections of rutting will receive treatment to see which performs best under varying conditions, and when it is anticipated the verges will be at their softest and most susceptible to collapse or wash out. As part of a wide-ranging change programme within our Place and Sustainability directorate, the County Council is revising and tightening its assurance arrangements.”

Source location

Response from Cambridgeshire County Council
Page 3 · response
Published 1 August 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Meet monthly through the Puddock Road Project Board to keep planned works on target and address emerging issues.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Puddock Road Project Board”

Source location

Response from Cambridgeshire County Council
Page 4 · response
Published 1 August 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Develop a new Road Safety Strategy.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I want to assure you that I am determined that we learn from tragedies like this and that we take action to reduce those killed and injured on our roads. Delivering enduring improvements in road and vehicle safety is a key priority, which is why we have already announced the development of a new Road Safety Strategy – the first in over a decade.”

Source location

Response from Department of Transport
Page 1 · response
Published 1 August 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Satellite-navigation operators are responsible for ensuring their platform information is accurate and up to date.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It is the responsibility of satellite navigation operators to ensure the information they provide on their platforms is accurate and up to date. Drivers, should they choose to, can usually provide feedback and suggested corrections via satellite navigation operators’ websites.”

Source location

Response from Department of Transport
Page 3 · response
Published 1 August 2024

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

The Department and local authorities have no direct power over satellite-navigation routing guidance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Neither the Department for Transport nor individual local authorities have any direct power over the routing guidance offered by satellite navigation devices.”

Source location

Response from Department of Transport
Page 3 · response
Published 1 August 2024

Open published response
Back to top

Information checked against the published report and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Official responses located
2/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026